[blink180tone]

i must say that i do enjoy goldfinger, espceially they're older stuff. i took a listen to their new cd and i must say that are begining to sound like all the other pop punk bands. so stick to their old stuff.


kerelybonto--
if you like ska i have a good suggestion for you. the name of the band is called catch 22 and they are out of jersey (my favorite state, dont ask why) they are on a label called victory records whicih i believe is a hardcore rock label. and althouh they dont play hardcore rock they play a mean mix of punk and ska. i like the sound and yes it is pretty hardcore (10x that of take off your pants and jacket---blinks latest)

 

[20silkcut]

Excellent topic Blink.

Been on the lookout for some decent up to date punk. Very old school myself, although i have discovered Rancid and Dropkick Murphys to my taste in recent times. Hopefully pick up a few new bands to audition from this thread

Feel in the mood for some punk now unfortunately nearly everything is on vinyl and my turntable is knackered

------

Evening saved - after a bit of raking have uncovered CD copies of Can't Stand The Rezillos and Germ Free Adolescent

 

[markl]

Most people on this board are audiophiles in addition to music lovers. You'll find more people into jazz and classical as a result. Your average punk album is not so well recorded.

Does punk rock really exist anymore? When did it die? Was the so-called "grunge" movement punk rock? These are topics I'd enjoy debating if people are interested. I'm an aging new wave/indie/college/alternative/grunge rock dude from back in the day and could provide perspective from that point of view.

Blink 182 is not exactly "punk". I say that as someone who loathes people who are always trying to be "punker than thou"

. But Blink 182? That's a boy band in disguise.

They get zero extra credit for writing and playing their own songs. "Punk Pop"? Is that not a contradiction in terms. Blink is more like 95% pop and maybe 5% punk.

markl

 

[carlo]

man, markl, nice post. i've thought about the whole "is grunge punk" thing before, and here's my thoughts:

in the sense that grunge was so anti-pop, anti-hair band, anti-establishment there are a lot of parallels to the great ramones period of rock and roll: drop the pretension and get back to guitars and rock. kurt cobain was definitely a punk mislabeled, but nirvana's music forced a whole new genre - its sort of like how the stooges were punk but most of the bands influenced by them are considered rock or power rock. but once grunge became pop a lot of the creativity went out the window. from a completely selfish perspective, i always wonder what kurbain's musical response would have been: to punk punk turns pop (a la some of daniel johnston and los mutantes, but different). like otis redding, there's the unshakable feeling that their best album was never recorded.

nowadays the big division is between proggers and punk guys, garage seems to be a little in between category for the two. to be blunt, the whole categorization deal gets on my nerves: emo, chill, power pop, nu punk, retro punk... i can't help but think everybody wants to pigeonhole nowadays.

as for punk being dead, i say it really happened when johnny rotten did the whole public image thing. but i suspect that was kind of his point. now its guys being "punkish" instead of breaking new ground. the upside is that a lot of today's music is such an interesting mix of parts from others that its making music semi-interesting again.

 

[DarkAngel]

M I S F I T S
Got to put one more plug in for an essential punk artist that lays to waste all the recent poser punk pop bands. This is horror punk
fronted by the one and only Glen Danzig, easily the best vocals in the punk scence. When you got song titles like:
-mommie can I go out and kill tonight?
-die,die,die my darling
-death comes ripping
-little angel *****
-too much horror business
you know this is cool crap

 

[markl]

"in the sense that grunge was so anti-pop, anti-hair band, anti-establishment "

This is an essential facet of punk rock-- that it was essentially a *reaction* against the status quo. Rather than being revolutionary (like the pretensious 60's hippies claimed to be), punk is "reactionary", and by its nature the response of outsiders to the mainstream. One thing the original English punks HATED were the hippies. They cut their hair short and dressed radically different as a reaction to all that. In this way it always lacked a vision of its own and this is what makes it so hard to define. To me, "punk" is the musical equivalent of "outsider art".

This begs another interesting question: do you have to come from the disadvantaged class to be a "true punk"? Debate...

"there are a lot of parallels to the great ramones period of rock and roll: drop the pretension and get back to guitars and rock."

Do you have to have an electric guitar in your band to be a punk? Is that a requirement? Isn't punk supposed to be *forward thinking*? Is today's electronica closer to the DIY spirit of punk?

"kurt cobain was definitely a punk mislabeled,"

At the time (don't know how he feels now), Johnny Rotten (the definition and embodiment of "punk") claimed to hate Nirvana, saying that it was just more of that "hippie ****".

"but nirvana's music forced a whole new genre - its sort of like how the stooges were punk but most of the bands influenced by them are considered rock or power rock. but once grunge became pop a lot of the creativity went out the window."

The problem with Nirvanna was that they had way too much talent and charisma to remain in the tiny musical backwater of punk. I will NEVER forget the first time I say the video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I though AT LAST, here's something that I like that will break through. It was OBVIOUS that this was a watershed musical moment. Finally I had a band that I could show people and say "See this is what I've been talking about all this time", and they would actually GET it.

"nowadays the big division is between proggers and punk guys, garage seems to be a little in between category for the two. to be blunt, the whole categorization deal gets on my nerves: emo, chill, power pop, nu punk, retro punk... i can't help but think everybody wants to pigeonhole nowadays."

The whole point of punk IMO was to break new ground, do something wholly original and buck all current trends. All these bands today (Strokes, White Stripes, Hives) while pleasant enough, are just following a formula that was perfected by real talents years and years ago. Those guys never made it big, so their schtick was never seen by the masses so it may seem "fresh" today. But it's not.
This goes double for all those repulsive "grunge-lite" bands (Creed, Puddle of Mudd, etc.)

"as for punk being dead, i say it really happened when johnny rotten did the whole public image thing. but i suspect that was kind of his point."

Indeed, after punk, English journalists dubbed what Rotten and others were doing as "post-punk". So if we've already seen "post-punk" come and go, where are we today: "post-post-post-post punk"?

So what is punk-- is it a sound, an approach to music, an attitude, a style of dress?

markl

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl At the time (don't know how he feels now), Johnny Rotten (the definition and embodiment of "punk") claimed to hate Nirvana, saying that it was just more of that "hippie ****". "as for punk being dead, i say it really happened when johnny rotten did the whole public image thing. but i suspect that was kind of his point."

**** John Lydon. He was a lame-ass loud mouth then and he's an old lame-ass loud mouth now. His relevance ended when Sid Vicious died. Now he makes money trying to impress people that weren't around when punk broke in the 70's.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Punk is anti-music. Virtually all of the best, truly ground breaking music began with the desire to destroy music. Public Enemy, Godflesh, Merzbow, all of these genre creating and genre busting artists are all on record saying they wanted to end music as we know it.

If know what punk sounds like, it's not punk.

 

[carlo]

markl,

see, thats where it gets interesting. your hippie analogy is relevant, i have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of punks are really hippies lost: people who make a statement instead of making people think about statements. i don't think there's a set of criteria for punk, but i don't think its limited to anti-pop. i do think punk music involves guitars, thats just the way it goes. anti-pop (as so much electronica and the like fit under) is a broader idea for me. anti-pop is so interesting because it leads to non factory writers attempting really cool ****. for example, during the grunge/"alternative"/dirt rock period of the 90s electonica and some catchy art stuff (jonathan richman, april march, kathy mccarthy) was the anti-pop response. round and round we go.

but back to the topic of discussion, punk-ish is very, very different than punk to me. its an admittedly narrow way of thinking, but it either is punk or it isn't, there really isn't a gray area.

just about the whole garage scene is ripping off the people of the past, thats kind of what makes it so interesting to me. i think garage rock are music critics making music, much in the same way progressive is. of course this is a big departure from the great garage stuff of past - dan melchoir, love, etc - but i still dig it for what it is. but sorry, i can't think of a single current band that qualifies as punk. anti-pop maybe.

but thats the thing, over all of these responses how many subcategories of music have been named? its dumb to try to stick everything into little pockets of a genre, then say the great artists transcend those boundaries. its just too easy, but its turned into music subculture lingo: in truth that whole "i'm more punk than you are" ideology. whatever punk is, i don't think it can be classified.

i enjoy that your style of response raises more questions, in the true punk sense. i'm curious as to your response to the last question you posed?

 

[markl]

"**** John Lydon. He was a lame-ass loud mouth then and he's an old lame-ass loud mouth now. His relevance ended when Sid Vicious died. "

John Lydon is a maverick, iconoclast, one-of-a-kind *genius*. Sid Vicious was a junkie who couldn't play bass. Sid Vicious contributed *nothing* to art, culture, or music.

"Now he makes money trying to impress people that weren't around when punk broke in the 70's."

How does he do this? By giving interviews? Are you saying he gets *paid* for that?

You should read his book. It's a fascinating glimpse into a fascinating mind. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, and he does have a tendency to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary, but he is *always* entertaining.

"Punk is anti-music. Virtually all of the best, truly ground breaking music began with the desire to destroy music. Public Enemy, Godflesh, Merzbow, all of these genre creating and genre busting artists are all on record saying they wanted to end music as we know it."

This speaks to the fact that I pointed out earlier-- punk is essentially a reactionary art-form. As such, what punk is at any given time depends on what is going on in popular culture.

"i don't think there's a set of criteria for punk, but i don't think its limited to anti-pop."

Well, i agree that simply being "anti" is not sufficient in itself to make it punk, but it is necessary.

"but back to the topic of discussion, punk-ish is very, very different than punk to me. its an admittedly narrow way of thinking, but it either is punk or it isn't, there really isn't a gray area."

Oh, my whole point is that it's all grey area. What about Green Day? They came out of the local punk scene, played at all the punk clubs to punk kids, started out on a "punk" label. Were they ever punk? Or did they cease to be punk once they signed?

"its dumb to try to stick everything into little pockets of a genre,"

There are actually two categories of music: GOOD and BAD.

Restricting yourself or defining yourself to limited genres is truly sad. You miss out on so much!

"its an admittedly narrow way of thinking, but it either is punk or it isn't, there really isn't a gray area. "

"whatever punk is, i don't think it can be classified"

He he he. Exactly!

"i'm curious as to your response to the last question you posed?"

I don't think there is an answer. You ask 100 people you'll get 100 different answers.

markl

 

[blink180tone]

i must say that i am glad i started this thread.... a lot of good disscussion going on.

i like what both markl and carlo have to say on what punk is. i feel it is an more of an attitude and a state of mind rather than a genre of music. its a motion, or rather an emotion, that screems think for yourself, question authority, and if you dont agree **** authority. people are so content with living their daily lives never asking questions and never wondering why, and then along comes these "radical" thinkers who play a loud in your face guitar and scream what the hell are you doing?? dont be satisfied by being spoonfed all your thoughts and ideas, and if you dont agree with somehting have the balls to stand up and yell why.

and as for punk being dead i think both you are completely mad. punk is not dead, punk will never be dead, because somewhere, right now, there is a kid jammin on his/her (have to be politically correct) guitar pissed off at the world in which he lives. and although we mighjt not currently hear of any quality, spit in your face "punk bands" there will always be that angry youth who questions authority and has the balls to look authority in face and say FU.

and i totally agree that there are two types of music...good and bad, and that trying to categorize and file every band or artist as a particular type is ********.

 

[blink180tone]

just curious on anyones thoughts of sublime as a punk band....

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl John Lydon is a maverick, iconoclast, one-of-a-kind *genius*. Sid Vicious was a junkie who couldn't play bass. Sid Vicious contributed *nothing* to art, culture, or music. "Now he makes money trying to impress people that weren't around when punk broke in the 70's." How does he do this? By giving interviews? Are you saying he gets *paid* for that? You should read his book. It's a fascinating glimpse into a fascinating mind. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, and he does have a tendency to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary, but he is *always* entertaining.

I guess you were impressed. And so the beat goes on...

 

[KR...]

Danzig era Misfits are the best!

Also check out this band : http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/155/cancerslug.html

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Guidry John Lydon....was a lame-ass loud mouth then and he's an old lame-ass loud mouth now....

Quote:

Originally posted by markl ....Lydon is a maverick, iconoclast, one-of-a-kind *genius*....

I was never a big fan of John Lydon or The Sex Pistols, but I did very much dig the song "World Destruction" he and Afrika Bambaataa performed as Time Zone (I was a big Bambaataa fan as a kid).